Anti-bullying seems like an easy cause to support, right? How can anything be wrong with a movement that’s trying to protect kids from bullies? Well, how about if one of the leaders of that movement is a nasty little ball of spite like Dan Savage:
As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy asses.”
The speaker, in a supposed attempt to encourage young people to behave in a civil fashion toward each other, immediately launches into a diatribe against Christian values. When some of the students – particularly a few of the young ladies – become offended, he berates them and engages in hostile name calling. This is the keystone of the anti-bullying campaign?
Savage’s uncharitable attitudes toward Christians and Republicans are well documented. Based on that history, it doesn’t seem like bullying is really his concern at all. I think that if kids were bullied for being Christians, or socially conservative, or virgins, or things like that, it would be a-ok with him.
But there he is as one of the leading voices of the anti-bullying movement, and endorsed as such by the White House.
This was one of my concerns when I wrote my first post on anti-bullying: that the anti-bullying movement isn’t really about stopping bullies; it’s about giving other people the chance to be bullies. Savage wants to collect enough political capital so that he and his allies are free to give the gay rights equivalent of a purple nurple to all their enemies. It’s not about justice or equality; it’s about payback.